VS LAB Alpha Discussions

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Alkasar wrote:

    Davian wrote:

    Safety in numbers was one of the most broken rules in the game and in warhammer as well.
    may be. here is the space to arguebut anyway you always could some modify that rule in new edition to make it more playable, right?
    so why not to keep it?

    teclis2000 wrote:

    Announcing normal R&F models to answer duels is a much cooler rule than honourless, imho.
    also may be.. but why need?feels like LAB team change the rules not because they are good or bad, but just to make their own
    Safety in Numbers was an effective, yet boring rule. It had the consequence that our units nearly never broke from combat. But because of that safety, other advantages were not possible because points had to stay low.
    Now we have Strength in numbers removed, Res stat reduced by 1, but as compensation we have Life is Cheap. Consequence of this set of changes is, that we now often (more often than before) win combat, but suffer more losses and when we lose, it is more likely that we run. It is a more dynamic and interesting melee that we can pull off now. More risk of breaking but also more reward of opponent breaking. More swingy.
  • Alkasar wrote:

    Nicreap wrote:

    because that is exactly what they did. That has always been the point of the LAB to complete rebuild the book into a pure T9A creation with no intention or desire to just copy previous GW rules.
    ya, looks likethan why need take old Armies idea?))) if LAB team think they could make original rules idea, why not make original Army from beginning?
    I mean not changing existing armies, but make something fresh
    come on, let Skaven be themselves and make new Army of Avrasi. I think this quite possible with couple of good artist and concept designers

    seems LAB just not have good ideas about Fantasy Army concept,
    cause all historical decor now used not looks as tasty as Elves, Orcs and other holy staff like Skaven

    actually I really like what LAB do about Rules part of the game, but I really dont like they too much change Armies concept
    especially when we talk about Army I play 10 years :D
    A lot of people have models and they want to keep playing them. But we can't play "Skaven" because it is not 9thAge IP.

    If we want to keep using our models but also want to play 9thAge, then the only option is to make a very new and different army than Skaven was before.

    There is another community project for people who want to play Warhammer fantasy with their old rules, just better balanced.
  • arwaker wrote:

    A lot of people have models and they want to keep playing them. But we can't play "Skaven" because it is not 9thAge IP.
    If we want to keep using our models but also want to play 9thAge, then the only option is to make a very new and different army than Skaven was before.

    There is another community project for people who want to play Warhammer fantasy with their old rules, just better balanced.
    Understand
    so what I personally wish is to keep for Rat army not only models but main rules concept too
    I mean not keep exact rules, just their concept - this will keep Army idea alive. Many old players like me would like this)))

    And about the model problem, it could be solved
    We have a good studio, which could do full model range for any good new Army, just need have an idea
    for example some Undead Pirats or something else which would be popular between players but still dont have good model range available
  • WarX wrote:

    But I guess their primary usage is to use Callous? Tarpit expensive opponent models with some unit to hold in place and then move Grenadiers to shred them into pieces? If so this design is great. Because with 8" they can deal quite nice damage directly and are useful against armies, when this Callous technique will work ;).
    No pain, no gain.
    Yes, they are conceived to exploit callous.

    They need more range to exploit that. I have actually mentioned that before.

    If you put a 50 strong slave unit in the table, you cannot put a grenadier unit behind it and shoot at the engaged to slaves enemy. 10 models x 20 mm > 8 inches.

    That is not taking into account the mandatory 1' gap + the 20 mm + 1/2 inch gap between the first and second rank.

    A design which have proved wrong and it is repeated is not great, it is still bad.

    Specially since callous in the previous iteration worked on 3+, and now on 4+.
    scissors: "OMG ROCK IS SUPER OVERPOWERED! NERF IT!!" "what about paper?" "paper is fine"

    Photos of models/armies from ETC 2017:

    Cool models seen at ETC 2017
  • then

    Alkasar wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    A lot of people have models and they want to keep playing them. But we can't play "Skaven" because it is not 9thAge IP.
    If we want to keep using our models but also want to play 9thAge, then the only option is to make a very new and different army than Skaven was before.

    There is another community project for people who want to play Warhammer fantasy with their old rules, just better balanced.
    Understandso what I personally wish is to keep for Rat army not only models but main rules concept too
    I mean not keep exact rules, just their concept - this will keep Army idea alive. Many old players like me would like this)))

    And about the model problem, it could be solved
    We have a good studio, which could do full model range for any good new Army, just need have an idea
    for example some Undead Pirats or something else which would be popular between players but still dont have good model range available
    You might want to look into Warhammer army projects. They are doing what you want.

    Unfortunately, T9A will never be able to provide what you want, because there stated goal is to not recycle GW rules but make entirely new ones.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • When you speak about keeping the army spirit the same, just change some rules, I think one could argue that this is fulfilled. Of course this topic is debatable, but for me there is enough spirit similar to the old army, and even a lot of improvements. I like the background a lot more than the GW one. Sure, one can always say that the spirit is lost and this is a totally different army one does not like anymore. There is just not a good measure of "how much change" happens. The project board has decided to change about this amount and I personally am very happy with the outcome.
    It is a thin red line between "too much change" and "not enough change", that is different for everybody. I personally would prefer more change, less GW heritage, but I also understand people who want less.
    If those amount of changes is too much for someone, then there are alternative systems which stay closer to the GW original. But I recommend to everyone who thinks about this to stay a while and try to get used to the new style. I know changes feel strange but this is in the very nature of change itself. I made the experience that things feel quite familiar after a while, and going back to the past then suddenly is like heresy.

    New armies can certainly be done. But priority is currently to make those classic 16 armies over to 9thAge, and make some supplementaries for them. What happens later, some 8 years in future maybe, we will see.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by arwaker ().

  • Davian wrote:

    Safety in numbers was one of the most broken rules in the game and in warhammer as well.
    No it was not. It was good for large blocks of troops, where you had the same ld as a dwarf in your blocks if you had a tyrant in the list, or up to 9 if you had another character, and this was only for large blocks.

    To actually play a lot of the options in the book safely you had to have a demon, and only in his ld range would you be as reliable as a dwarf without a king. The rule itself was needed otherwise there was no point playing the game. I play all armies so I know that without this rule, or without a demon in the army, VS would be an unplayable faction. They simply would not be consistent enough. There is also no point in saying that because of this low ld they had low point cost troops, this is simply not true either. It meant that VS had to be considering in their approach to the game.

    Nicreap wrote:

    Alkasar wrote:

    feels like LAB team change the rules not because they are good or bad, but just to make their own
    because that is exactly what they did. That has always been the point of the LAB to complete rebuild the book into a pure T9A creation with no intention or desire to just copy previous GW rules.

    The previous rule had problems with small units unless the demon was present, but the presence of the demon allowed these troops to be fielded.

    I have not read the new rule but I hope it addresses the issues that previous VS had. Having units run of the board is often simply not fun.
  • arwaker wrote:

    When you speak about keeping the army spirit the same, just change some rules, I think one could argue that this is fulfilled. Of course this topic is debatable, but for me there is enough spirit similar to the old army, and even a lot of improvements. I like the background a lot more than the GW one. Sure, one can always say that the spirit is lost and this is a totally different army one does not like anymore. There is just not a good measure of "how much change" happens. The project board has decided to change about this amount and I personally am very happy with the outcome.
    It is a thin red line between "too much change" and "not enough change", that is different for everybody. I personally would prefer more change, less GW heritage, but I also understand people who want less.
    If those amount of changes is too much for someone, then there are alternative systems which stay closer to the GW original. But I recommend to everyone who thinks about this to stay a while and try to get used to the new style. I know changes feel strange but this is in the very nature of change itself. I made the experience that things feel quite familiar after a while, and going back to the past then suddenly is like heresy.

    New armies can certainly be done. But priority is currently to make those classic 16 armies over to 9thAge, and make some supplementaries for them. What happens later, some 8 years in future maybe, we will see.
    Great words. I just hoped find someone with similar experiences as me.
    But seems changes are prior idea here. Well, thanks for your feedback anyway :))

    BTW my offer is open. if LAB team will have an idea to create absolutely new fantasy Army,
    we could discuss. I have all tools needed to do full model range.
  • Man, we really played different games. My experience is that I usually had one block with leadership 9 or 10 as the core of my army, and then several other blocks that started out on an 8 and then pretty quickly fell to maybe a 6 after the first round of combat and then broke. It's a weird game if there aren't two or three skaven units running away.
  • WarX wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    berti wrote:

    They are good against any infantry. And their movement/march stat is high enough to get out of line of sight of many things.
    If anything else...they can also act perfectly as some kind of bait to bring oponents near the vermin infantry blocks to initiate fights oponent can´t win.

    Oh...and their prefered targets are some with higher R and low armor, so monsters, single models....they are a great addition and realy dangerous. Allow them a stand and shoot against a chariot, small knight? Hell...they will kill back their points with ease.
    I used them quite a lot with 12'', after the reduction, I tried them a couple of times with 8''. They were not playable anymore, nad they are worse now.I don't know where your opinion of massive damage vs DH comes from. a unit of 8 does 4 hits, 2 wounds in a single shooting phase if they can hit on 4+ . After that, they are gone.If DH looses games because some unit lost 2 HP during a single shooting phase, the DH book needs a rework very soon.
    You are 100% right except that this is not damage output of minimal size Grenadiers in VS LAB ;)
    OK, I didn't see accurate. So it is more like 4 HP lost after saves, still...
  • Someone earlier said that Grenadiers were never used in tournaments a few pages ago (somehow lost the quote), but this is incorrect. I specifically remember a player winning a tournament (I think a 30 player tourney in England) using 2 units of 10 Grenadiers on the flanks. This is hardly empirical to their awesomeness, but it's not nothing.

    That said, they are appear to be very difficult to use well. Unit depth means that they can't shoot from behind. Widening the tarpit unit being shot into didn't make the situation better as the Grenadiers still need at least 1 model to be able to draw LoS to the target. If the Slaves are 7 wide to stop from being too deep to allow shooting, then the Grenadiers also have to go wide. If the target enemy goes Close Formation then the Grenadiers can no longer "see" them. They basically have to position on the tarpit unit's flank to work, but this opens them up to charges which then overrun into your backfield. Soooo 1-2 turns of shooting hitting on 5's.

    Personally I was hoping for a debuff grenade unit and 3D printed 28 of them
  • berti wrote:

    They are good against any infantry. And their movement/march stat is high enough to get out of line of sight of many things.
    If anything else...they can also act perfectly as some kind of bait to bring oponents near the vermin infantry blocks to initiate fights oponent can´t win.

    Oh...and their prefered targets are some with higher R and low armor, so monsters, single models....they are a great addition and realy dangerous. Allow them a stand and shoot against a chariot, small knight? Hell...they will kill back their points with ease.
    You can't seriously think there is much chance that a 10" move can put a 8-15 model skirmish formation unit out of line of sight and still be in 8" range with most of your models and also not into some other units charge range as well.
    The new 2 shot 5+ to hit is not going to change that and is more of a lateral move with better effect against lower Res models and worse against high Armor. Any terrain modifiers or hard target will make them useless.
    Their so called preferred target of using callous was also nerfed from 3+ to 4+.
    Callous 4+ is just not worth it, halving your damage is huge and you are on top of that taking the other half of damage on yourself.
    Does not matter if your models are cheap if you only do half the damage. Even with 3+ it is not worth loosing 33% of your damage in most cases.

    I have tried to make the current Grenadiers work but you will very rarely get your points back. You would have to be lucky with a suicidal shooting phase against an expensive monster.

    If we want Callous to really be used and not only be a gimmick rule it has to change to be more like what Skaven Slaves has atm. Not making the damage less, just kill more of your own. For example for every hit you get against the enemy your own unit in the same combat get one hit as well.
  • fadenye wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    The skirmisher bombers seem a touch too elite with two shots. I would prefer them as non-skirmish light troops with 1 shot - startingsize 15 and models shoot like skrimishers.

    Feels more vermin.
    8" Range does not match well with bigger units. Even with 8-15 models it is going to be hard to get in range.I also feel that Volley fire is kinda wasted on such short range, I doubt you will barely use that rule.
    Your suggestion of 1 shot and non-skirmish but shoot like skirmish would maybe be ok if they got at least 12-15" range to be able to use volley from behind friendly units which are now usually very big.

    4 ranks deep would mean 6,51 millimetres closer than current 2 ranks of skirmishers. I would manage.

    I typically have also had no trouble finding use for volley fire.

    Longer range... not needed imho.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably caracal morale.

    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.

    With plague at the pinecone throne - what else can one do but to roll dice and women around?
  • Nicreap wrote:

    My impression is even with multishot two, no one is going to field them just like no one fields the current version. VS has much more devastating shooting with much longer threat ranges.

    Thats a cost/benefit issue. More bodies with less footprint would help. The design works but the unit implementation isnt swarm feel.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably caracal morale.

    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.

    With plague at the pinecone throne - what else can one do but to roll dice and women around?
  • arwaker wrote:

    Alkasar wrote:

    Nicreap wrote:

    because that is exactly what they did. That has always been the point of the LAB to complete rebuild the book into a pure T9A creation with no intention or desire to just copy previous GW rules.
    ya, looks likethan why need take old Armies idea?))) if LAB team think they could make original rules idea, why not make original Army from beginning?I mean not changing existing armies, but make something fresh
    come on, let Skaven be themselves and make new Army of Avrasi. I think this quite possible with couple of good artist and concept designers

    seems LAB just not have good ideas about Fantasy Army concept,
    cause all historical decor now used not looks as tasty as Elves, Orcs and other holy staff like Skaven

    actually I really like what LAB do about Rules part of the game, but I really dont like they too much change Armies concept
    especially when we talk about Army I play 10 years :D
    A lot of people have models and they want to keep playing them. But we can't play "Skaven" because it is not 9thAge IP.
    If we want to keep using our models but also want to play 9thAge, then the only option is to make a very new and different army than Skaven was before.

    There is another community project for people who want to play Warhammer fantasy with their old rules, just better balanced.

    Nicreap wrote:

    You might want to look into Warhammer army projects. They are doing what you want.
    Unfortunately, T9A will never be able to provide what you want, because there stated goal is to not recycle do you happen to know GW rules but make entirely new ones.
    Do you happen to know the name of such project? I am really interested in checking it now that the rats are no longer the old rats.
  • ObiWan wrote:

    Do you happen to know the name of such project? I am really interested in checking it now that the rats are no longer the old rats.
    I do, it was in the post you quoted :P
    Warhammer armies project: warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Herminard wrote:

    fadenye wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    The skirmisher bombers seem a touch too elite with two shots. I would prefer them as non-skirmish light troops with 1 shot - startingsize 15 and models shoot like skrimishers.

    Feels more vermin.
    8" Range does not match well with bigger units. Even with 8-15 models it is going to be hard to get in range.I also feel that Volley fire is kinda wasted on such short range, I doubt you will barely use that rule.Your suggestion of 1 shot and non-skirmish but shoot like skirmish would maybe be ok if they got at least 12-15" range to be able to use volley from behind friendly units which are now usually very big.
    4 ranks deep would mean 6,51 millimetres closer than current 2 ranks of skirmishers. I would manage.

    I typically have also had no trouble finding use for volley fire.

    Longer range... not needed imho.
    I'm not sure how you calculated that.
    Second rank models in a skirmish unit has 12.5mm + 20mm = 32.5mm to the front.
    Fourth rank models in a non skirmish unit has 3x20mm = 60mm to the front.
    60-32.5=27.5mm. The unit has to be 27.5mm closer, a little more then an inch which is a lot with 8" range.

    With 15 models in skirmish in 3 ranks the third rank has 65mm to the front.
    If you want to shoot over a friendly unit you have to be a minimum 1" away and the friendly unit you are shooting over another 1" to the enemy. With 8" range that leaves the space for the friendly unit to be 87.4mm deep, 4 ranks, 20 models with a 5 model front.
    This is also when the three units line up perfectly with just 1" away from the enemy, it is not going to happen in reality.
    When that close you could have charged instead also if you wanted to.
    So when you say you had no trouble finding the use for volley fire I find that sort of hard to believe.

    Longer range needed imho.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by fadenye ().